Search Archives:

Monday, June 11, 2007

Sen. Joseph Lieberman said Sunday the United States should consider a military strike against Iran because of Tehran's involvement in Iraq.

"I think we've got to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq," Lieberman said. "And to me, that would include a strike over the border into Iran, where we have good evidence that they have a base at which they are training these people coming back into Iraq to kill our soldiers."

Yeah, that makes sense. Since the war's going south, the obvious answer is to do even more of it -- much like the way to stop your casserole from burning is to turn on the broiler. And blaming Iran for problems in Iraq is going to work only until you try to do something about it. Iraq's problems are largely homegrown and blaming Iran is merely propaganda. Attacking Iran is the next logical step only so long as you're pretending the propaganda is true. As we've learned from Bush, pretending your lies are true and acting on them invites disaster.

Lieberman is typical of the prowar morons, though. Not a damned thing they say makes any sense at all. I can only hope that they think we're all stupid and poorly informed. The alternative is that they're all stupid and poorly informed.

The obvious consequence of attacking Iran is more instability in the middle east, not less. And his 'solution' is pretty much guaranteed not to work. "I want to make clear I'm not talking about a massive ground invasion of Iran," Lieberman says. And this would stop something how? Remember how the US was the victim of a massive air attack at Pearl Harbor and it kept us out of WWII? Sure showed us...

This is more about saying something that sounds good than it is about actually stopping anything. But it also shows us something -- the prowar nutcases are pretty much clueless as to what to do. My reasoning here is that, other than staying in Iraq until the world stops turning, they aren't really in agreement as to where to go from here. If there were some clear strategy, they'd all be advocating the same thing. But they're not on the same page. The only thing they agree on is that we mustn't 'lose' -- but they don't even agree on what a 'win' is.

In fact, they can't even keep their own BS straight. Bush is the Commander in Chief when they need him to be and just some guy who takes his cues from the 'commanders in the field' when they don't. Either this runaway train has an engineer or it doesn't. It'd be nice if they picked one and stuck with it.

It's hard to see that there's any strategy at all in Iraq. The occupation has completely gotten away from them. Seriously, what overarching strategy would attacking Iran serve? Would all the insurgents suddenly say, "Golly, they bombed Tehran. We better quit."? Doesn't seem very likely, does it?

The surge, put forth as a 'new direction,' is just the same direction with more people. It's not a strategy, it's a tactic. There's a difference. Tactics serve strategy. If you have no strategy, changing tactics is technically referred to as 'screwing around.' If there's no strategy for the tactics to serve, it's basically pointless. And, as Liberman demonstrates, the prowar lunatics have no strategy.

The only thing approaching any sort of strategy here is 'just keep fighting.' That might work in a boxing match, but not in a game of chess. And no one ever called boxing a war game. It may be a strategy -- if you really want to stretch the definition -- but it's not much of one and not a very good one.

What Lieberman demonstrated Sunday wasn't any sort of solution or even a good idea. All he demonstrated was just how poorly the voters of Connecticut have served the nation. Lieberman's an idiot, but he's not just Connecticut's idiot -- he's everyone's idiot. He'll continue to be for years. Thanks guys.

And thank you media. Lieberman made his comments on Face the Nation and there's absolutely no reason that all of the stuff I've brought up couldn't have been asked of him. Seriously, Lieberman -- or any prowar moron -- can go on these news shows, saying the most stupid, insane crap, and the hosts will nod their heads as if any of it made any damned sense at all. The obvious question to ask after Lieberman mentioned his great attack Iran idea would've been, "What would happen then and why?"

I keep thinking of an episode of Futurama where the idiot blowhard Captain Zap Brannigan explains, "In the game of chess, you can never let your opponent see your pieces." That's Lieberman -- and any prowar lunatic -- in a nutshell. Nothing they say makes any damned sense at all. It kinda sorta sounds like it does, but only so long as you don't think about it.